Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 550.615 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 550.615 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 550.615 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 550.615

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS
Chapter 550
PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 550.615
550.615 Intertrack wagering.
(1) Any thoroughbred permitholder licensed under this chapter which has conducted a full schedule of live racing may, at any time, receive broadcasts of horseraces and accept wagers on horseraces conducted by horserace permitholders licensed under this chapter at its facility.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (1), a pari-mutuel permitholder that has met the applicable requirement for that permitholder to conduct live racing or games under s. 550.01215(1)(b), if any, for fiscal year 2020-2021 is qualified to, at any time, receive broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game and accept wagers on such races or games conducted by any class of permitholders licensed under this chapter.
(3) If a permitholder elects to broadcast its signal to any permitholder in this state, any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of ss. 550.615-550.6345 is entitled to receive the broadcast and conduct intertrack wagering under this section; provided, however, that the host track may require a guest track within 25 miles of another permitholder to receive in any week at least 60 percent of the live races that the host track is making available on the days that the guest track is otherwise operating live races or games. A host track may require a guest track not operating live races or games and within 25 miles of another permitholder to accept within any week at least 60 percent of the live races that the host track is making available. A person may not restrain or attempt to restrain any permitholder that is otherwise authorized to conduct intertrack wagering from receiving the signal of any other permitholder or sending its signal to any permitholder.
(4) In no event shall any intertrack wager be accepted on the same class of live races or games of any permitholder without the written consent of such operating permitholders conducting the same class of live races or games if the guest track is within the market area of such operating permitholder.
(5) No permitholder within the market area of the host track shall take an intertrack wager on the host track without the consent of the host track.
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), in any area of the state where there are three or more horserace permitholders within 25 miles of each other, intertrack wagering between permitholders in said area of the state shall only be authorized under the following conditions: Any permitholder, other than a thoroughbred permitholder, may accept intertrack wagers on races or games conducted live by a permitholder of the same class or any harness permitholder located within such area and any harness permitholder may accept wagers on games conducted live by any jai alai permitholder located within its market area and from a jai alai permitholder located within the area specified in this subsection when no jai alai permitholder located within its market area is conducting live jai alai performances; any greyhound or jai alai permitholder may receive broadcasts of and accept wagers on any permitholder of the other class provided that a permitholder, other than the host track, of such other class is not operating a contemporaneous live performance within the market area.
(7) In any county of the state where there are only two permits, one for dogracing and one for jai alai, no intertrack wager may be taken during the period of time when a permitholder is not licensed to conduct live races or games without the written consent of the other permitholder that is conducting live races or games. However, if neither permitholder is conducting live races or games, either permitholder may accept intertrack wagers on horseraces or on the same class of races or games, or on both horseraces and the same class of races or games as is authorized by its permit.
(8) In any three contiguous counties of the state where there are only three permitholders, all of which are greyhound permitholders, if any permitholder leases the facility of another permitholder for all or any portion of the conduct of its live race meet pursuant to s. 550.475, such lessee may conduct intertrack wagering at its pre-lease permitted facility throughout the entire year.
(9) In any two contiguous counties of the state in which there are located only four active permits, one for thoroughbred horse racing, two for greyhound dogracing, and one for jai alai games, no intertrack wager may be accepted on the same class of live races or games of any permitholder without the written consent of such operating permitholders conducting the same class of live races or games if the guest track is within the market area of such operating permitholder.
(10) All costs of receiving the transmission of the broadcasts shall be borne by the guest track; and all costs of sending the broadcasts shall be borne by the host track.
(11) Any greyhound permitholder licensed under this chapter to conduct pari-mutuel wagering is qualified to, at any time, receive broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game and accept wagers on such races or games conducted by any class of permitholders licensed under this chapter.
History.s. 47, ch. 92-348; s. 2, ch. 93-123; s. 17, ch. 95-390; s. 15, ch. 96-364; ss. 8, 9, ch. 98-190; ss. 13, 44, ch. 2000-354; s. 13, ch. 2002-2; s. 27, ch. 2021-271.

F.S. 550.615 on Google Scholar

F.S. 550.615 on CourtListener

Amendments to 550.615


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 550.615

Total Results: 6

GULFSTREAM PARK RACING v. Tampa Bay Downs

948 So. 2d 599, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 2207, 2006 WL 2690152

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 21, 2006 | Docket: 1773484

Cited 41 times | Published

that Gulfstream Park has, in fact, violated section 550.615(3) [relating to intertrack wagering in general]

OCALA BREEDERS' v. Florida Gaming Centers

731 So. 2d 21, 1999 WL 105106

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 1999 | Docket: 486162

Cited 17 times | Published

in this appeal is the constitutionality of section 550.615(9) Florida Statutes, which enables one thoroughbred

Ocala Breeders'co., Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Centers, Inc.

793 So. 2d 899, 2001 WL 920280

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Aug 16, 2001 | Docket: 1678051

Cited 9 times | Published

District Court of Appeal declaring invalid section 550.615(9), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). See Ocala

State, Dept. of Business v. Gulfstream

912 So. 2d 616

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 31, 2005 | Docket: 1755531

Cited 3 times | Published

an appeal from a final judgment declaring section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional. Among

Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Tampa Bay Downs, Inc.

294 F. Supp. 2d 1291, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20225, 2003 WL 22888995

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 7, 2003 | Docket: 2436682

Cited 3 times | Published

that Gulfstream Park has, in fact, violated Section 550.615(3), Florida Statutes or Rule 61D-9.001, Florida

Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulation v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n

967 So. 2d 802, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 542, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 1597, 2007 WL 2492308

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 6, 2007 | Docket: 64852989

Cited 1 times | Published

Const. The issue before this Court is whether section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), is unconstitutional